Author Topic: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?  (Read 107592 times)

Buffalkill

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #180: April 21, 2014, 12:05:12 AM »
I will state this, realms with higher density though are almost always better, funner, stronger realms than those with low density. Realm size does take effect, but higher density certainly helps a realm. (Its also generally caused by the realm being fun so things to tend to be a cycle in growth/shrinkage)
Yes, I think most people would agree. The problem that I see is the disconnect between what's good for the community, and what's good for the individual. The incentives overwhelmingly favour expansion over density. Consider this hypothetical. You're a regional lord and I'm a knight. My estate yields 100 gold, of which you get 50 and I get 50. Then our realm conquers a new region and I'm appointed as its lord. Now I'm getting 175 gold per week, and you're still getting 50 gold from my vacant estate. So I'm happy because the game is more fun now that my char has a title, plus my income goes up, my duke's income goes up, my ruler's income goes up, and your income stays about the same (maybe 5 gold less than before). As a realm, we gain access to whatever amenities come with the new region, e.g. food, paraphernalia, recruitment centres, strategic advantages. The effect of the reduced density is too negligible to even think about, and in any case we think that more nobles will join our realm as we continue to expand.